Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Cargo wrote:Think about the inverse, when Space offers (near) zero resistance. And you can not have a mag field without an E current. So free flowing E through space is only effected by bodies with their own E output/input that participate in the free E of Space. All the Magnetic fields are a result.

The mainstream consistently puts the magnetic cart before the electric horse, and then they don't understand why it doesn't work right. In pretty much every instance where the mainstream uses the term "magnetic reconnection", Alfven used circuit theory to explain the same events, from coronal loop activity, to magnetosphere activity and everywhere else in space. Alfven warned that you couldn't really understand what's going on without including all the circuit energy in the whole circuit, and the energy that is sustaining the circuit over time.

There's a "cause/effect" issue here that matters. Specifically the flow of current creates and sustains' the field aligned currents which the mainstream tries to describe as "lines". It's not really a simple magnetic "line" that they're describing, rather it's a field aligned *current* they're usually referring to when they describe "magnetic reconnection" events. It's really the circuit energy that provides the kinetic energy at the point of 'reconnection" when two or more field aligned currents "reconnect". If they called the process "circuit reconnection", it would actually make a lot more sense, both to them, and to anyone new to the idea who is trying to understand the process which they're trying to describe.

The electric currents sustain and create the magnetic fields, whereas the mainstream seems to start with only a field "line' and then try to describe the event. There are 'good" explanations of the process of course, but then there's the Clinger fiasco that comes from using a ridiculous name for the process.

Magnetic lines are not real, no more real than the topology lines on a 2D topology map to describe the 3rd dimension on the map. Like topology map lines, magnetic lines cannot disconnect from, nor reconnect to any other magnetic lines. The whole *field* forms as a 3D continuum, and it changes as a full 3D continuum as well. When that field changes inside of a conductor, it does in fact induce current flow. That's also true inside of a plasma because plasma is a nearly perfect conductor. In plasma, unlike in solids, the *positively* charged ions also move as a result of the field changes. That's really the only physical difference between ordinary induction in solids and "magnetic reconnection" in plasma.

It is of course possible to transfer magnetic field energy into induced particle movement, but it's still just a form of induction, albeit with ion movements being induced as a result of the changing magnetic field as well as electron movement. There is a real transfer of field energy into particle kinetic energy which occurs, but it's not a "special" type of thing. It's just ordinary induction.

The mainstream makes a "big deal" about what happens in the 'double layer/current sheet" that forms between two "Birkeland currents". Since current flow will seek the path of least resistance, it can ultimately 'rewire" itself over time. It's really just 'circuit reconnection", or particle reconnection, but no magnetic lines are disconnecting from, nor reconnecting to other magnetic lines, so it's not actually "magnetic reconnection". It's "magnetic reconfiguration" perhaps, but the term 'reconnection" should never be applied to a magnetic line.

Cargo wrote:Think about the inverse, when Space offers (near) zero resistance. And you can not have a mag field without an E current. So free flowing E through space is only effected by bodies with their own E output/input that participate in the free E of Space. All the Magnetic fields are a result.

In their wiki explanation of "magnetic reconnection",
they state that Space has zero resistance,
and therefore there is no electric field.
This means for them that there is no electric current other than caused by magnetic field.
Which is so obviously false..

But that is not enough. To make it even worse, they oversimplify
the magnetic field to magnetic field lines.
Which is then used in their claim that the breaking and reconnecting of field lines
has anything to do with physics.

Cargo wrote:Think about the inverse, when Space offers (near) zero resistance. And you can not have a mag field without an E current. So free flowing E through space is only effected by bodies with their own E output/input that participate in the free E of Space. All the Magnetic fields are a result.

In their wiki explanation of "magnetic reconnection",
they state that Space has zero resistance,
and therefore there is no electric field.
This means for them that there is no electric current other than caused by magnetic field.
Which is so obviously false..

But that is not enough. To make it even worse, they oversimplify
the magnetic field to magnetic field lines.
Which is then used in their claim that the breaking and reconnecting of field lines
has anything to do with physics.

Those are not the only errors that they made.

With the exception of the first paragraph, it's hard to find much that's actually right about it IMO.

Guest wrote:"But it might be noted that when you take separate magnetic fields and they come together, and combine into a single field... the overall results might be expected to be a completely new pattern of lines of force... brought about by the natural merging of the original fields."

Later:

"It seems to me far more likely that the true explanation is to be found within the realm of PC/Plasma Physics."

He then ignores/overlooks that most of the work on MR *is* being done by plasma physicists - using Alfven's "Frozen In" concept, as opposed to the EU resources he choses to reference.

Which Alfven theory is right, 1.0 or 2.0? On the surface, that appears semantic - whether the magnetic field lines are "frozen in" or emerge as a result of a charged object in motion does not change the fact that the magnetism is there.

Quoting NASA: "When two sets of fields connect... the magnetic fields re-align and snap into a new formation..."

That is essentially what the guest said in the first video. Never mind one's personal belief into this reconfiguration releasing massive amounts of energy - conceptually, each group can visualize the same starting point.

This video has a different guest, who goes on to talk about how even school children can see that the lines of iron filing organized by a bar magnet are not themselves real. (The guest goes on from here to be completely disengenuous - taking all the liberties possible with the semantic description of the process.)

But what happens when you introduce a second magnet? Exactly what first guest speaker and NASA quote articulated: the iron filings jump around, in real time, as the two fields merge into a new, single field. So, in the spirit of the Alfven problem above: whether the field lines, themselves, are real, or are only implied by the direction taken by matter in the field is irrelevant because the results are the same.

"Magnetic field lines don't exist in three dimensional space, they are only created by draftsmen...It can't stretch; it can't store energy; and it certainly can't throw real things around; it's only a line drawn by a draftsmen."

Then how was the magnet "thrown around" in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDNwVHJ ... tu.be&t=76 - the little kid pulled a NASA (was stunned into silence) when the magnet shot off his spinner... I deliberately chose a simple video because one of EU's favorite talking points is the scalability of electromagnetism. Occam's Razor.

Is the merging releasing energy? In the spirit of the first two issues: whether matter/energy is released by the merging or matter caught up in the merging process is ejected like that magnet in the video is irrelevant because clearly "something" is happening.

That something is the result of the poorly termed Magnetic Reconnection, and, as such, The LCDM/EU issues with "Magnetic Reconnection" form a Semantic Argument.

~~~

Issues:
1- Is there is an actual difference between Alfven 1.0 (frozen in) and Alfven 2.0 or is it purely semantic? If so, what is it?
2- Is matter/energy stored in the field lines and released, or is the matter/energy caught up in the merging process kicked out?
3- Is each part of the above two questions semantically equivalent?

Perhaps if wherever the word FIELD is used in these discussions one were to substitute the term
FIELD OF INFLUENCE, the understanding of the EU perspective would improve.
Some people seem to think of the word as representing a playing field, which can exist without players.

Guest wrote:"But it might be noted that when you take separate magnetic fields and they come together, and combine into a single field... the overall results might be expected to be a completely new pattern of lines of force... brought about by the natural merging of the original fields."

Later:

"It seems to me far more likely that the true explanation is to be found within the realm of PC/Plasma Physics."

He then ignores/overlooks that most of the work on MR *is* being done by plasma physicists - using Alfven's "Frozen In" concept, as opposed to the EU resources he choses to reference.

Which Alfven theory is right, 1.0 or 2.0? On the surface, that appears semantic - whether the magnetic field lines are "frozen in" or emerge as a result of a charged object in motion does not change the fact that the magnetism is there.

Quoting NASA: "When two sets of fields connect... the magnetic fields re-align and snap into a new formation..."

That is essentially what the guest said in the first video. Never mind one's personal belief into this reconfiguration releasing massive amounts of energy - conceptually, each group can visualize the same starting point.

Those are in fact valid starting points because it talks about the whole *field* merging together and/or changing. It's not trying to describe individual little tiny 'lines' reconnecting like poor confused Clinger. It's also implying (though not stating outright) that the change of the whole field is occurring in a conductive medium, which would of course induce particle movement in the plasma.

Compare and contrast that with Clinger's goofy nonsense about producing "magnetic reconnection" without single plasma particle to his name, and *without* plasma particle acceleration.

Now of course poor Clinger is certainly no 'expert' in plasma physics, in fact he admitted that he had never read a textbook on the topic of MHD theory. Someone however at ISF/JREF *should* have set him straight however if only tusenfem, who *is* someone that should know the difference. However, in over seven years nobody has *ever* bothered to fix his nonsense, so to this very day Clinger erroneously believes that "magnetic reconnection' is a plasma optional process where individual and non existent *lines* "reconnect" themselves in a null point no less! How FUBAR can you get anyway? With all their collective mathematical skills and presumed skills in physics, none of them have managed to come up with a formula to express a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection' without a plasma particle to their name, and nobody has set poor confused Clinger straight in over seven years. That's not just ignorance, that's *willful* ignorance, and not just by one member, but rather the *entire EU/PC hater posse. They're still over there talking about "lies" and "delusions" and ignorance, when it fact it's the whole EU/PC hater posse that apparently hasn't a single clue about the process in plasma known as "magnetic reconnection", including tusenfem who never corrected Clinger!

That's the problem with calling a fundamentally *induction* related process "magnetic reconnection". It's an unreasonably confusing term that leads one to falsely believe that they understand the process when in fact they don't understand it *at all*! To this very day "The Man" thinks that "magnetic reconnection" happens to his compass with a couple of refrigerator magnets. Again, nobody bothered to set him straight either. It's like watching a bunch of belligerent Keystone cops falling all over themselves. I'd blame Clinger, but tusenfem is equally guilty, actually more guilty since he's a "professional", for not setting Clinger on the right path.

After that absurd and surreal conversation I admit that I got a bit belligerent at JREF/ISF, but only because not only are they clueless, Clinger flat out lied about what I said. I didn't deny that magnetic reconnection happens as he falsely claimed on his blog, I deny that it happen *without plasma* and plasma particle moment. That still makes me angry because he leaves that crap on the internet for everyone to read. Not only does it confuse anyone else who reads it in terms of what magnetic reconnection theory is all about, he has flat out lied about my beliefs for over seven straight years!

None of this *should* have occurred. It only happened because astronomers are using a completely *ridiculous* term to essentially describe an induction process in plasma. The term "circuit reconnection" would have made sense. The term "particle reconnection" would even have made better sense. The term "magnetic reconnection" is just a stupid term because the magnetic "lines* don't exist, they cannot disconnect from, or reconnect to any other magnetic lines, and it's basically nothing more than an *induction* process to start with.

Aflven's double layer paper makes the whole term "magnetic reconnection" irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments. Meanwhile even supposed "experts' like tusenfem fail to "teach" any EU/PC hater, even when they are *blatantly* wrong. The EU/PC hater posse doesn't care what lies they tell, as long as they lie about plasma physics, EU/PC theory, or lie about individuals who promote EU/PC theory. ISF is the undisputed headquarters of pure willful, intentional, and dishonest ignorance.

jacmac wrote:Perhaps if wherever the word FIELD is used in these discussions one were to substitute the term
FIELD OF INFLUENCE, the understanding of the EU perspective would improve.
Some people seem to think of the word as representing a playing field, which can exist without players.

Also, if whenever one was tempted to used the dead-horse term "lines", they were to substitute with ENVELOPES ( we're all talking 3 dimensional space here, right?); these conversations would seem a bit more real.
Soo much of "tilting at windmills", from both sides.

Then why are the Usual Suspects in MR research using Introductory phrases like, "...since we know from Alfven that magnetic fields are frozen in to conductive plasma..."?
~~~

Let's take a different route:

Devil's Advocate

Electricity only "works" within atmospheres.

Within the atmospheres of celestial objects, electricity performs work. Observational evidence is found within the atmospheres of the Sun, Earth, gas giants and some of the gas giant moons.

Within the interplanetary space between these atmospheres, electricity performs no work. While there is a measurable electric field, it does not appear to be "doing" anything.

(Comets might change this theory in the future - but until that time, we have to assume that heat from the solar wind is being transfered to the surface of the comet, thus sublimating subsurface gases.)

By extension, interstellar and intergalactic space would also not be conducive to electrical work.

The appearance of electricity performing work in interplanetary space is then assumed to be attributed to fluctuations in planetary magnetospheres, themselves interacting with changes to the solar magnetic field. This leads to the poorly termed 'magnetic reconnection' event.

Magnetospheric magnetic field lines are not themselves breaking, thus releasing vast amounts of stored energy, but being constantly resituatedin real time, according to changes in the much great solar magnetic field.

To be fair: the mechanisms accounting for the circumstances leading up to magnetic reconnection events and for the release of matter and energy after said events have yet to be sufficiently articulated.

Then why are the Usual Suspects in MR research using Introductory phrases like, "...since we know from Alfven that magnetic fields are frozen in to conductive plasma..."?
~~~

Let's take a different route:

Devil's Advocate

Electricity only "workzzzzz.

Yes, "magnetic reconnection" is a poorly chosen term. "Double-layers" are equally poorly comprehended in their ubiquity, form and function; at least in readily available published papers.
Here is a great collected resource for data, primarily from the past ~10 years of solar probe/solar orbiter returns, which are our most direct sources of data. (note: the earlier programs may need some extry clicking to show all presentations).

Magnetic fields do not create a very strong forces.
It needs either a current to work, or a ferromagnetic material.
It is also a dipole, its force will reduce with 1/r³ with range r.

Since there is no ferromagnetic material or something like that in plasma,
the only force that is produced by magnetic fields will be on electric currents.
Nowhere else.

And from Maxwell we know that magnetic fields can only be produced by electric currents
in plasma. This seem cyclic, but from Maxwell we know that such currents
can only start with electric fields.

So if there is any magnetic field, it is proof of electric fields.

And this flare looks exactly like an electrical field and discharge.
(because it is).

If there is a current, we also know that the current always goes from
one charged region to an opposite charged region. There is simply no
other way.

The magnetic fields can hinder the magnetic currents by pushing the
path away from the direct path with Lorenz force.
This force is perpendicular on the magnetic field and causes the
electron to follow a circular motion.
The circle is perpendicular to the magnetic field.

So to avoid this longer circular path, and more resistance the electric current can easier
flow in parallel with the magnetic field.
The magnetic field starts to act as a resistor.
And this is what Birkeland was seeing. The electric currents started more likely at the poles.
This works well on the large spheres of the earth and possibly the sun too.

But if I look at the Sun's surface, I see currents everywhere.
In these plasma currents, electrons flow from negative to positive charge, and positive
ions the opposite way.
This is also very visible in the flares. The currents often goes both ways.

Another interesting observation is that stable currents are flowing in a circular fashion.
Unlike the flares that move upward from the sun.
That means that these circular currents encounter a magnetic force perpendicular
to the circle. So the magnetic field is not in parallel with the current in this case.

Stable currents can not be produced be changing magnetic fields (induction).
Simply because they require a stable increment of the fields and these would
require a stable increment of an electrical current.
In our technology we use alternating current to overcome that problem.

So it appears to me that the magnetic fields have no big influence on the surface
of the sun, other than curving of the paths of electrical currents.

Plasma has no reason to flow anywhere (or go anywhere), unless there is an electric field.

Now let's see what the mainstream thinks:NASA-Infographic
They claim that the loops and filaments follow the magnetic field lines.
But as I showed above, this is not true. They may start at the poles, due
to the least resistance. But that is only if there is no electrical field or current.

As I explained above: The circular ones are perpendicular to the magnetic field, which
is logical, because the currents produce THIS magnetic field themselves.

The white lines describing the magnetic field of the NASA is just made up.
There is no other magnetic field than
the one that is produced by electrical currents.
And these currents can not exist without electrical fields.

The infographic also sells the "magnetic reconnection" myth.

NASA wrote:
...This results in the magnetic field lines getting wound up.
When the winding gets extreme (far right), the magnetic-field lines "snap",
causing solar flares at those locations on the surface.

This is against Maxwell, Faraday and Lorenz.
Against basic physics.
Total fantasy.

I am not sure why you are so driven to rant on about this, for lack of a better word, tool.

I focus on that *conversation* (not so much the individual) because it taught me something important about EU/PC haters and astronomers. It wasn't at all surprising to me that Clinger botched his own math homework assignment since he admitted all along that he'd never read a book on the topic of MHD theory. The part that blew me away was the fact that none of the resident astronomers like Selfsim, or even supposed "experts" on plasma physics like tusenfem bothered to set poor Clinger straight. If the resident astronomers at JREF could be that clueless, then it's entirely possible that the vast majority of the astronomy community is completely out to lunch on this topic. The fact that nobody there has *ever* corrected him, tends to validate that concern. The mainstream has serious conceptualization problems related to plasma.

Then why are the Usual Suspects in MR research using Introductory phrases like, "...since we know from Alfven that magnetic fields are frozen in to conductive plasma..."?

Beats me. Can you explain to us how a magnetic field is "frozen" into a light, hot, thin plasma? Alfven warned about getting too carried away with the term "frozen". That term might make a little sense in a solid, or even *very dense* plasma environments, but it makes no sense at all in the context of thin light plasma like we find in the chromosphere, the corona and the Earth's magnetosphere. How is a field "frozen" into a gas or a plasma? I think the term "frozen" is a misnomer, and it's one of the major problems with the whole "reconnetion" misconceptions.

To be fair: the mechanisms accounting for the circumstances leading up to magnetic reconnection events and for the release of matter and energy after said events have yet to be sufficiently articulated.

On the other hand, the observation of "magnetic ropes" connecting the sun to various planets makes it pretty easy to understand how electrical energy gets transferred into the magnetosphere and into the aurora.

To form a better understanding of this shared experience we call reality.

What is yours?

Ok, Sorry if you took offense.
I was making an analogy about traveling a long distance and the appearance of "not doing anything".
It was not meant to be taken personally.
Many people have said there is no electricity in space, and if there is, then it "doesn't do anything".
I was asking, what is your point about saying that electricity only does work in atmosphere's ?
jack